how far can i actually take this?

Naf

starrystarry wrote: »

Why? If people come on a public forum to talk about their religious beliefs should I not be allowed to comment on them? Are their viewpoints to be respected simply because they're religious viewpoints, even if they're utter nonsense? Don't think so.

Big difference between a comment and a derisory, bigoted, derogatory jibe.
I didn't come here to talk about them; if you care to read the beginning of the thread you'll see that I used myself as an example of my circumstances restricting availability through something I choose to do; and I still got the JSA.

starrystarry

Naf wrote: »

Big difference between a comment and a derisory, bigoted, derogatory jibe.
I didn't come here to talk about them; if you care to read the beginning of the thread you'll see that I used myself as an example of my circumstances restricting availability through something I choose to do; and I still got the JSA.

Derisory yes, bigoted no. You stated that you object to caffeine because you believe it is damaging. I believe that religion is far more damaging. Am I not allowed to express this opinion?

Naf

starrystarry wrote: »

Derisory yes, bigoted no. You stated that you object to caffeine because you believe it is damaging. I believe that religion is far more damaging. Am I not allowed to express this opinion?

I wasn't objecting to your opinion; I'm very glad you have one and don't care in the slightest that it differs from my own. But, yes, your comment was bigoted. The way you put it across clearly shows that you have no respect for opinions and values that you do not share or understand.
I would not attempt to stop you expressing your opinion, whatever that may be. So long as you do it in an appropriate manner.

Marco86

gojojo wrote: »

EXACTLY what im trying to do!

No you were trying to instead spend your days sitting around at home babysitting those kids,
and expecting single childless people to pay for you to live.

Marco86

ekkygirl wrote: »

And this "kid" will be paying for the future benefits and heathcare of anyone old enough to have an opinion on this forum.
Children are future tax payers, It is not good enough to say "you chose to have kids" Children are vital to the continuation of the species, If only the well off had them there would not be enough of them.

I have mixed feelings about whether the OP is entitled to JSA so not getting in to that.

No, if the kid is broughtup in a household which relies on benefits, they will likely merely endup becoming another parents whos incapable of looking after their own kids themself,
and so instead relies on handouts from single childless people to pay.


People can have as many kids as they choose, however THEY should then have to pay for those kids themself.

That way people would focus more on getting their lives to a stage where they are capable of supporting a child before having 1.

AimeesMum_2

Marco86 wrote: »

No, if the kid is broughtup in a household which relies on benefits, they will likely merely endup becoming another parents whos incapable of looking after their own kids themself,
and so instead relies on handouts from single childless people to pay.


People can have as many kids as they choose, however THEY should then have to pay for those kids themself.

That way people would focus more on getting their lives to a stage where they are capable of supporting a child before having 1.

By supporting a child you mean going out to work to pay for them? How do you propose that people do this on their own when childcare is (in my area) £38 per day. I don't think anyone could have expected the cost of being a working parent to rise so much.

Marisco

sunnyone wrote: »

Are you sensitive to cafeine too?

No, I had high blood pressure, and the doc recommended I cut it down/out. Now I'm just used to it I'm not precious about it though, I will drink it in a caff or someones' house etc.

Marisco

AimeesMum wrote: »

By supporting a child you mean going out to work to pay for them? How do you propose that people do this on their own when childcare is (in my area) £38 per day. I don't think anyone could have expected the cost of being a working parent to rise so much.

Must agree with this. I cannot understand why anyone would go to work, just to pay out all the wages in childcare!!! Kind of defeats the object of working! However, I also don't think people should get money to stay at home with kids either. If people want to do that fair enough, I did myself till the youngest went to school. But we just tightened the old belt a few notches, and the kids were quite used to "no, we can't afford it". I sometimes think a bit more of that wouldn't go amiss these days

clairec79

zebramolli wrote: »

Gojojo I was in a similar situation to you when I was left jobless after the company I worked for closed, my daughter was 20 months old at the time. When I went for my first meeting with an advisor at the job centre I explained that with my husband working full time during the day I would only be able to work between the hours of 6pm and 7am.

I wonder if the difference is you have given a 13hour a day window in which you are willing to work, so more flexibility than the OP who has basically given a start and end time (ie if a job was 6pm till 2am this would fit with husbands work hours but according to the hours she's given be deemed not suitable - even though she may be willing)

AnxiousMum

sunnyone wrote: »

There is more caffine in Dr Pepper than there is in coke according to my sons pead. and they are both made by the same company so your beliefs dont really fit with abstance from caffine, my daughter has similar beliefs in that shes a veggie but she wears leather etc. and she has convinsed herself that wearing leather dosnt go against her veggie beliefs because it suits her to do so.

If you dont believe in drinking/eating caffeine, fair enough but you cant change the composition of a product to ignore the fact that there is caffeine in it to sit yourself, chocolate also has caffeine in it as do many everyday products so you need to check the ingredients in every product that you eat/drink to make sure that you avoid all caffeine containing things.

NAF simply stated that the rules don't specifically mention a product, let alone a branded product (especially since Coca Cola, Dr Pepper etc were certainly not around when the doctrines were put into place) - NAF has simply stated that it pertains to all things containing addictive additives - ie, caffeine, nicotine, tannin (teas). It's the same belief that bans use of drugs, nicotine - they are all items that change the mindset, alter the body, and are addictive. If you would like to learn more about it rather than nit pic somebody's religious beliefs, maybe you can google 'mormons' and 'word of wisdom'. No, I am not a Mormon - but certainly not ignorant of other people's religious viewpoints.